'The complaint is glaringly silent on whether any Plaintiff ever won any bet ever placed on any platform in any pool.'One day short of a year since the filing of a class-action lawsuit alleging that the nation's biggest racetracks conspired with “insider” high-volume bettors to rig pari-mutuel pools at the expense of average horseplayers, a federal magistrate has recommended that the case, which delves heavily into the world of computer-assisted wagering (CAW) and rebates, be thrown out and not be allowed to get refiled.United States Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks wrote in a 68-page report made public Friday that the plaintiffs have no standing because they cannot prove they suffered concrete, specific injuries or harms, and that the defendants never made false statements that small-scale bettors might have relied upon when placing wagers.The lead plaintiff, Ryan Dickey, who was later joined in the lawsuit by other individuals, is a Colorado resident who stated in his original Oct. 24, 2025, complaint that, as a casual bettor, he had wagered about $100 weekly for several decades before quitting horseplaying over frustrations with the purported “manipulation of the betting pools.”The plaintiffs had alleged that as a result of the CAW “scheme,” betting pools were not being operated in lawful pari-mutuel fashion, and thus became illegal forms of gambling.This, the plaintiffs claimed, was a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).RICO is a sweeping 1970 federal statute initially designed to combat the Mafia. But RICO has long since lost its “organized crime” stigma, evolving over the decades into a civil litigation component more often asserted by purported victims of white-collar crime.The defendants-the New York Racing Association (NYRA), The Stronach Group (TSG), Churchill Downs, Inc. (CDI), Racing and Gaming Services (RGS), AmTote International, United Tote, and Elite Turf Club-had all denied the allegations and lodged motions for dismissal.In court documents, the defendants described their CAW and rebating practices as neither “unfair” nor “fraudulent,” while arguing that Dickey was using “hyperbole” and “rhetoric” to generate “headline-grabbing” attention designed to mislabel “common, lawful practices” as wrongdoing.Wicks, in his Oct. 23, 2026, report filed in U.S. District Court (Eastern District of New York), summed up the case:“Plaintiffs are a class of individuals who engage in horse betting. They bring this action against Defendants, who, inter alia, own race tracks and operate the digital infrastructure upon which bets are placed, alleging that the system is 'rigged' in favor of high-volume algorithmic wagerers at the expense of individuals such as Plaintiffs.“Plaintiffs assert 14 causes of action, the majority of which sound in fraud. For the reasons stated below, the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing, as Plaintiffs fail to plead either injury [or] causation.“And the dismissal should be with prejudice, because (1) nothing any Defendant said was untrue, and (2) no Plaintiff relied upon any alleged misrepresentation or was otherwise proximately harmed thereby.”A dismissal “with prejudice” would mean the plaintiffs would not be allowed to restructure their complaint and try again.At this juncture though, the dismissal is only a recommendation and not a final order or opinion.In the federal court system, it is common for magistrate judges to handle substantial matters by consent and to issue reports and recommendations in other cases. But they generally do not have the authority to enter a final judgment in a civil case.Thus, Wicks's recommendations will now go to a district judge who will have the authority to act upon them, and the parties will have a 14-day period to lodge objections.Wicks detailed the reasons he recommended dismissal:“Plaintiffs are seven bettors from seven states who wagered through various advance-deposit wagering platforms, principally TwinSpires, Xpressbet, TVG, and NYRA Bets. [Each alleges] that he or she expected 'any payout based on the odds one would expect from a betting system free from any agreement or scheme that rigged payouts to favor certain groups,' and 'incurred financial losses as a result of the scheme.'“Notably, however, no Plaintiff identifies a single wager: no track, race, date, pool, amount, or result. No Plaintiff alleges ever having held a winning ticket-the only kind of ticket whose return other bettors' money can affect,” Wicks wrote.“The closest Plaintiffs come is with the allegation that Defendants' conduct increased the effective takeout paid by ordinary bettors and therefore reduced Plaintiffs' expected winnings.“This claim of a 2.5% increase in effective takeout stems from a letter from Elite Turf Club, LLC to California Horse Racing Board dated Sept. 5, 2025,” Wicks wrote.But, Wicks explained, “Although Elite proposes this effective takeout increase as a theoretical number, it concedes that the figures used in the hypothetical are the ranges that the racetrack seeks to maintain.“Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that they regularly placed bets on Defendants' platforms; one might therefore argue that the [complaint] raises a reasonable inference that Plaintiffs' bets may have been commingled in pools that were affected by CAWs.“Still,” Wicks wrote, “it is not enough. Although it may be plausible that Plaintiffs' bets commingled in pools that were affected by CAWs, Plaintiffs do not allege so outright. Even setting that aside, the [complaint] fails at a more basic level: Plaintiffs do not plead that they ever even won a single bet.“As explained above, and as conceded by all parties, CAWs do not diminish the winnings of a bettor who backed the wrong horse-zero is zero.“The impact of CAWs, including the admitted-to 2.5% increase in effective takeout, is felt only by those who won. Yet the [complaint] is glaringly silent on whether any Plaintiff ever won any bet ever placed on any platform in any pool,” Wicks wrote.Wicks then gave an example:“That would be like [a plaintiff] alleging that he shopped at Whole Foods stores generally, but refusing to state which stores, and more to the point, refusing to state whether he ever purchased any pre-packaged products. The Court cannot assume Plaintiffs were impacted by the alleged rigging scheme,” Wicks wrote.With regard to the RICO claims, Wicks wrote, “Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants participated in a RICO enterprise through an illegal 'Pool Rigging Enterprise.'“Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant was a member of this enterprise and facilitated the Insider Betting Group's ability to manipulate betting pools and reap profits that otherwise would have been distributed to ordinary bettors.“Plaintiffs further allege that each Defendant exercised control over some aspect of horse-betting operations and therefore played a role in the enterprise's ongoing operation.“According to the complaint, the members of the enterprise shared the purpose of increasing profits through the preferential treatment afforded to the Insider Betting Group,” Wicks wrote.But, Wicks explained, “Plaintiffs' theory is hamstrung by the fact that most of the members of the alleged enterprise are direct competitors: Stronach, Churchill Downs, and NYRA compete with each other in the racetrack industry; AmTote and United Tote compete with each other as the two dominant totalizers; and Elite and RGS compete with each other as two of the three dominant CAWs.“The suggestion that direct competitors are secretly working in concert to rig the market is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation,” Wicks wrote.Wicks continued: “To be sure, not all of the Defendants are in competition with one another. There is some vertical integration as well: Stronach owns AmTote; Churchill Downs and NYRA share United Tote; and Stronach and NYRA share Elite.“So, to the extent NYRA shares subsidiaries with both Churchill Downs and Stronach, it is not entirely farfetched to suggest they had opportunity and motive to conspire.“Still, the [complaint] falls woefully short of connecting these dots,” Wicks wrote.As for the fraud component of the RICO allegations, Wicks wrote, “Plaintiffs allege in broad strokes that the fraudulent scheme to defraud ordinary bettors for their financial gain was systematic and coordinated, with each Defendant contributing to a scheme that advantages the Insider Betting Group by giving the insiders lower takeout rates, access to CAWs for increased speed and pool manipulation, and insider information access.“Defendants allegedly coordinated these advantages in their synchronized management of price setting, rule setting, control of when bets can stop coming in, pool betting access, betting platforms, high-volume bettor hubs, and CAWs,” Wicks wrote.Yet, Wicks explained, “Plaintiffs fail to state a predicate act of fraud for a very simple reason: no Defendant is alleged to have said anything fraudulent.“In sum, because no Defendant said anything misleading, Plaintiffs' RICO claim predicated on fraud must fail,” Wicks wrote.The post Magistrate Recommends Dismissal Of Bettors’ Lawsuit Against Racetracks appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.